Senator Obama in Beaufort Jan. 24

I just received information that Sen. Obama will be at Battery Creek High School Gym on Thursday at 4:30. Doors open at 2:45. Entrance will be from the student parking lot only. The school ia at 1 Dolphin Drive. If there are changes to this info, I will update. I know these events can change on short notice.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Mr. Obama, how can we vote for you as president of United States of America when you belong to a church,Trinity United Church of Christ, whose website states in its visions # 4 " a congregation with a NON-NEGOTIABLE commitment to AFRICA??? Shouldnt our President have a NON-NEGOTIABLE COMMITMENT TO AMERICA??? It states NON-NEGOTIABLE..Arent you a part of that congregation?? And also the site says it is " a black worship service and ministry that addresses the black community"..My church addresses ALL people, regardless of race )..How can you unite a country when you belong to a church that excludes whites??..This is NOT rumor..It is FACT on the churches website..

Trinity United Church of Christ has been called by God to be a congregation that is not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that does not apologize for its African roots! As a congregation of baptized believers, we are called to be agents of liberation not only for the oppressed, but for all of God

Just type in Trinity United Church Of Christ into your yahoo web browser, then click onto its link, About Us..It is all there, the exact words on their site.. So, Mattyboy, is your church open to all? Are you NON-NEGOTIABLY committed to Africa??

Yeah. Saw it. Looks like almost any "About Us" for a white church website, except they're focusing on black people (their congregation). Which apparently doesn't appall me like it's supposed to. In fact, it's downright tame compared to church websites I've seen affiliated with certain past/present candidates. Or just their personal religious dogma. *cough* Huckabee *cough*.

If we're going to drag the minutae of every candidate's church into the debates, I'm going to drown in my own vomit. This is the same as a white person saying "BLACK ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION???!!?? OH, but if we had WHITE ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION, blacks would RIOT IN THE STREETS!!!!"

This of course ignores the historical incidents of white people threatening to kill or maim blacks who came to worship at their church (or just straight up doing it)... so black people formed their own houses of worship. When white people spend a huge amount of time and energy subjugating another race, surprise surprise, that race starts to take care of its own after a generation or two. And then white people act like they've been kicked out of a special club and whine about equality.

Simply put, absolutely nothing on the Trinity church's website is anything I would consider alarming, and surely nowhere near as alarming as things that have actually come OUT OF THE MOUTH of a person (white or black) like Huckabee.

So Mr. Obama is coming to the Beaufort area. Well who the heck cares? I would not go across the street to see and hear his junk talk. Everyone thinks that the Republicans are the ones giving everything away. Look again, The Democrats always want to give everything away, you dont have to have a job, just get welfare, free hospitals etc. I think everyone should work and earn their money even if all they do is sweep the sidewalk at the post office. gosh

will be crushed when he learns about your feelings. Me an my frens are goin cuz we aint never werked so we got lotts of time to sit around an spent our cheks an vote demmycratic. I caint vote republickan cuz i aint got no skils like sweepin. I here you got to findish high scholl to werk at the post office an we demmycrats aint dointhat. I'm hopin to git me a free hospital like you said an may bee then i can write and use grammer an sintax an punctiation jus like you.

So Matty, how about YOU printing a site? What church are you talking about that has a mission statement that reads they will only preach to WHITE people, talk about WHITE ISSUES, and that these things are NON-NEGOTIABLE?

I lived in Chicago for many years and saw first hand some of the things Reverend Wright was doing / preaching when he would go into the streets and make DEMANDS of "white people". He led a number of boycotts of "white companies". He's demanded reparations (he wants blacks to get PAID thru tax dollars, for slavery). He creates racial tension in Chicago whenever he gets a chance.
No, Reverend Jeremiah Wright doesn't want "peace" between whites and blacks in our country.............he wants to GET PAID.

Obama must agree with the church - he's been a member there for many years. In fact, Rev. Wright even performed the marriage ceremony for Obama and his wife.

My daughter attends Battery Creek High School where Obama will speak later today. She said they were told that you must be 18 to attend the event. The reason that venue is being used is due to the large size of the auditorium - not because Obama wants to take time to speak to the students. I thought that was the situation, as well and was impressed by it. However, I can't imagine that he or any candidate outside of a SC congressman, senator, etc. would use his campaign time to speak to a group of people who aren't eligible to vote.

MAYBELATER ain't gonna hear Obama's "junktalk". Pass that crystal ball of yours around and what color is your skin, don't be sayin' your race. Tell the truth now what color is your skin?

Junktalk is those crazy white looking people marching on MLK, Jr. Day in Jenna, M I crooked letter crooked letter. Probably had truckloads of police so those junk people wouldn't get rolled up.

This kind of junk is old junk. Its the white looking people holding communities back, states back, and the country back. Their too busy----me, myself, and I-------kissing peoples' butts till they're raw. For what----$$$$$
Take that racist.

I agree with you that Obama is above "junktalk" and that he knows that young people of all races are his focus. The older blacks I have talked with like Clinton and even a few will vote for McCain.

I'm not sure this nation is ready for a black president yet, even though he is half white. Already, this early in the campaign, talk of racism is already becoming a media event. Obama says he is a "uniter", but his campaign is not uniting the nation, but beginning to divide us again like the early 60's. Not all his fault and I don't blame him solely.

Will four years of an Obama presidency continue to divide us by race? Will old wounds not healed yet continue to be fodder for the media? Will charges of racism be hurled against opponents of ideas he presents, not by him, but by Jesse Jackson and other black leaders? I don't like the previews I'm seeing.

"Change" is that over quoted word at the moment. Unless Obama can "change" the race factor, he will lose white voters and lose any chance of success. Since blacks are 13% of the national population, he will need all the white votes he can muster. He has to find a way to "unite" and not separate the electorate. A real challenge for anyone.

I'd like to suggest that if "this country isn't ready for a black president yet", it needs to get ready. Not for Obama, who has never been in my top three, although I like his speechifying very much, but for the good of the country.

The idea that "division" is the fault of those who speak out against injustice is so not in tune with American ideals. We are better than that, and it's high time we acted like it. If some people need to be dragged kicking and screaming into enlightenment, then let's do it. Let's remind ourselves who have been the real dividers: Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Bull Connor and many others like them, who by the way, did what they did for personal power and gain, not for love of country.

Why in the world should any person of color wait for old wounds to heal when they were the ones who suffered the wounds? I don't get that, heron. Nor do I get why you blame Obama at all.

It saddens me to think that anyone thinks this country isn't "ready" for a black president. This country is probably the most progressive country in the world and yet it is not "ready" for a black leader? What in the world does that even mean?!

Sorry heron but race will ALWAYS be an issue in this country. The country got it's start and is founded on racism. So, if it is going to take this country being non-racial for it to be ready for a black president, then it may never be ready.

I don't believe we all have to be able to hold hands with every race and sing Kumbayah in order to be ready for a black president, mexican president or any other kind of president. We just have to be able to look at racial issues realistically, talk about them openly and not judge a person's intelligence, capability, etc based on the color of their skin.

It's not Obama's fault that people can't see beyond the color of his skin.

As for the philosophy of his church, he's stated several times that while it is his church home he does not agree with every aspect of the philosophy, nor does he agree with everything the preacher says/does.

MOST churches are racially divided whether we want to admit that or not. Black people and white people worship differently, whether we want to admit that or not. Pastors speak to the interests/experiences of their congregations and if they are a black church, then the references to Africa, slavery, history etc are in line with that practice.

I think Matty gets it. Churches like Trinity were created for the same reasons things like BET, the Black Miss American pageant, etc were created--because the original versions did not include or address the needs/issues of blacks. They continue to exist because again, whether we want to admit it or not, that is still the case in many instances.

Do I like all of the things that Trinity seems to stand for? Nope, I don't. But at the end of the day, Obama's religious beliefs mean nothing to me because I'm not looking for a pastor--I'm looking for a president.

I am not going to get into the "political" issue, but do have a comment on what MissMel said about the Black Miss America Pagent. I don't know how anyone can say that it and others like it were created because the others did not include or address the needs/issues of blacks. Last I checked and I believe it has always been the policy, black contestants are allowed to enter the Miss America Pagent, and in fact, many have won. I do not believe white contestants are allowed to enter the Miss Black America Contest. Now what's that all about?

If you are not willing to stand behind our troops, please, please feel free to stand in front of them!

I don't know much about the policies of any pageant so I can't speak to who is/isn't allowed to enter. However, it doesn't take a knowledge of the policy to know that the original Miss America pageant did not have black participants and not because black women didn't want to be in it. (Why else would the Miss Black America pageant be created? Obviously black women wanted to experience it/be a part of it.) Can you imagine what would have happened to a black woman who dared compete with white women prior to the 1970s?!?!! We weren't allowed to drink from the same water fountain or sit at the same lunch counter but you think we would have been allowed to enter a beauty pageant?!?

The first black Miss America wasn't crowned until 1984---over 60 years after the pageant began. The Miss Black America pageant was created in 1967, long before blacks were even truly considered eligible for the original pageant. This information was taken directly from Wikipedia along with this quote:

For decades it was, practically speaking, a pageant for young white women...

As for the exclusion of whites from the Miss Black America pageant, I'm not sure that's a matter of "policy" either. But just like whites wouldn't be comfortable entering something that is obviously not for them, blacks weren't comfortable entering Miss America, whether policy prevented them or not.

Just because some things weren't titled "white" doesn't mean it wasn't intended solely for them.

I think that is what the problem is with this election. If there weren't Obama, which honestly I think people aren't gettign past the name, it would be we're not ready for a woman president, and I blame the CLinton campaign for being the "race" issue to the forefront whether it the female race or the black. They did it at a time when Obama was hot on their heals if not passing them. I'm also not real thrilled with the Clintin tag team lately.

But I will say that the Democratic candidates have my attention. I voted my conscience int he Republic primary. The thought of remotely having to vote for

Please explain how the Clintons brought race into the campaigns. From what I saw, Bill mentioned positive statements about MLKJr just before his birthday on Jan 15 and that it took the congress and Lyndon Johnson signing the law to make his dream closer to reality. Some of the black leaders, not Obama, misinterpreted the remarks and protested, which the media picked up. From there it has been escalating. Have I missed something?

Just a side note about the Miss America pageant in the years when I was growing up. It was always held in Atlantic City (NJ), which of course is north of the Mason-Dixon line, but the beaches there were strictly segregated. I didn't know that when my family used to visit AC in the 1940's and early '50s, when it was still lovely, but when I was there a few years ago, I saw a plaque and realized that there was such a place as "Chicken Bone Beach". Nice, huh? The idea that there were no blacks on the beaches we went to totally escaped me when I was a kid even though I was horrified at the "Colored" and "White Only" signs I saw when we visited my grandma in Florida.

That's the insidious trap of racism, especially institutionalized racism. It feels normal if that's what you grow up with and it's all you see. And then of course there is the lie that "we have no racial problems here" that comes from white mouths who have never asked a black person how he/she really feels.

So of course no black young women were going to be in the Miss America pageant in the old days.

Yes PB, our country had slaves in it's early days. -A lot of countries did.
In the "old days" black women didn't win the Miss America Pageant. -Today they do.
A lot of things were different in the "old days". -Today things have changed, and changed for the better.
Does racism still exhist? -Sure.......on BOTH sides. And probably always will (at least in our lifetime).

I would like to think that we've learned from history, so let's put the "old days" behind us, shall we? If we don't, how else can we move ahead?
Hey, some countries still have slavery today. -Where is that in the media?

Is our country ready for a black President? I would like to think that it is. In fact, I would like to think that we would rally around such a thing. -I just don't believe Obama is the person to bring the country together in such a way. -Not because of his color, but because of his ideals.
Democrats seperate people as part of their platform strategy. That's how they get people to vote for them. Rich vs. poor; the haves and the have-nots; big business vs. the little guy; blacks vs. whites; men vs women; etc. -It's always class warfare for them. -Take from the rich and give to the poor nonsense.
Look at the Jimmy Carter days when we had the top tax bracket at more than 70%. Those stinkin' rich people were payin' their fair share back then, weren't they! But were the poor better of because of it..........or did it just make them "feel better" (another liberal tactic) that the rich were being taxed to death?

I think the 1st Black President in this country will have to come from the Republican side of the isle - that is, if they can get past the "Uncle Tom" rhetoric that will no doubt come their way.
There are a number of blacks that I could support. -Not because they're black, but because of their ideals. J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, and Kenneth Blackwell, just to name a few. I would even consider General Powell. Even though he is a little too left of center for me, I think he is a terrific leader and someone that I believe could unite this country.

Hopefull, this type of history will come in our lifetime. Well.......at least MY lifetime anyway. ;-)

cobraguy you done totally lost your mind. Bring this country together, how?? There is so many areas, and all they talking about are the issues they're beatin a dead horse. Health, Iraq, Education. Maybe squeeze one or two more issues in their.

Me, I got 100 freakin' issues cobra dog. And they talkin about 5. I don't see how no George Bushwacker brought together anybody, except a form of nepotism or is it nepatism. This country has had enough of anybody with a name of Bush or Clinton.

Barama already got my vote absentee. I simply voted for the person with least amount of baggage they were trying to hide. Yeah, he's a smooth talker, like Regan. He's a young brown Democrate Regan. I saw Ronald Regan when he came to Beaufort, and I saw Barack when he came. The time flies.

"I would like to think that we've learned from history, so let's put the "old days" behind us, shall we? If we don't, how else can we move ahead?"

Well, CG, you know I'm going to disagree. :>) I personally don't think this country can put anything behind us until we understand its implications. Whatever you "would like to think" is getting in the way of real thinking, IMO.

The other day I heard Chris Rock say something like "you never know what low expectations you have of yourself until you see what your people have actually accomplished". He said that after discovering, with Harvard professor Dr. Henry L Gates, that his great-great grandfather Julius C. Tingman had worked as a slave for a number of years before joining the Union forces. When he died in 1917, he willed over 65 acres of land to his heirs, and along the way he served in the SC Legislature . Not all African-Americans have such accomplishment in their history, but the point is that they don't know what is their history and what they should live up to. Likely what is true about them is better than what they have been taught by a culture that has never been too comfortable with their very existence here. It seems obvious to me that just to survive the Middle Passage took extraordinary genetic material. To live on and survive all that followed is even more evidence of the quality of the people who did. IMO we need to recognize that and build on it. That's a better way to deal with racial differences than to cower from the facts in guilt and fear. Find the good and make it work.

To sweep American Black History, or Women's History for that matter, under the rug and pretend that nothing significant for the majority culture took place accomplishes little except to create more comfort for those who don't want to look at the truth. The truth is that in our history, as in the history of most nations, are some things that don't fit our ideals. American History is not all about white founding fathers and white men fighting. At the same time that my hero Alexander Hamilton was overcoming his past and struggling to form a nation, human beings were being sold at auction and women were being subjugated in ways we don't even know. We don't know a lot because all the history books were written from the points of view of white males. Were many of them courageous and amazing? Yes. But did they not ask and indeed force sacrifice on many others who are not as well-known? It is a fact that the self-proclaimed populist Thomas Jefferson lived so high on the hog that at his death, over one hundred human beings were sold to pay his debts. Even after Alexander Hamilton was killed soothing his ego and his reputation, the year after his son had died the same way, for many years his widow quietly went about the business of living and caring for what was left of her family, without slaves.

So, since next month is Black History Month, why don't we commit NOT to putting the past behind us but to gaining a better understanding of the wounds that heron referenced and that seem still to be too painful to discuss openly. (After February there's March, which is Women's History Month.) :>:)

Maybe more understanding of the facts will soften the hearts of those who are determined to hold the line at ignorance and stubborn failure to admit that they have played a part in the misery of other human beings. You are not "giving in" when you admit what's true. You are not really losing when you relinquish power that never should have been yours in the first place. Show courage, not cowardice. Live in faith, not fear.

Many southerners also understand that current US history texts have left mountains of history out of the texts and that a one sided view has and is being taught. However, for many Americans, the sum total of knowledge has been "Gone With The Wind", a fiction work. This has led to stereotypes that are not true.

True that black history has also been omitted in mainstream history, but current texts and history materials are including more events and people. But omitted and not being addressed is the pre Civil War, Civil War and the Reconstruction period in the south, from the southern view point.

Southern historians have been gleaning government records, diaries and letters to paint a different view of southern history in newly printed books. Hopefully over time, the mainstream history will include a more accurate depiction of southern and black history.

There's a lot of merit in what you say PB, but I'm not saying that we shouldn't know our countries history. Do you honestly think that this country doesn't understand the implications of slavery, and that slavery was wrong? -Come on, we're reminded of it all the time - especially by certain people that like to believe they are black "leaders".

What I'm saying is, if we continue down the path of dwelling on the negatives of our past, we will never move any further forward in this country.

Hey, I'm not black, nor am I a woman, so I'm not going to pretend that I fully understand what folks are thinking or feeling. But, I've known a lot of successful women, and successful blacks in my life, and they all seem to preach in the same tune. -"Move on"........."Get over it"......."Don't allow anything to get in your way to succeed"........"If someone closes a door in your face, move on to the next door"........"Work hard to get ahead, and once your ahead, work even harder".......

I've also know a lot of women and blacks in my life that use the past as an excuse if they don't succeed. The first door that closes in their face, they blame "whitey", or say "big business" is a mans world, or they blame our countries history.
-They're the ones sitting at home watching TV everyday - and usually end up voting for the Democrat promising to "go after the RICH" the most, and that offers them "a new quality of life".
-A promise that they never deliver.

You said it, WC: White supremacists are homegrown terrorists. So why appease them? The very notion of negotiating with foreign powers has inspired all manner of rhetoric about appeasement. I don't hear the right wing opponents of what they call "appeasement" railing against the appeasement of homegrown terrorists. No. It's easier to monger fear among the doubtful. Fear is no way to choose a leader.

Keep the pot simmering to avoid being poached if it boils? Really? Sounds to me like an old two-faced strategy of keeping people happy by buying them off with short term goodies and stealing from them in the long run. Sounds to me like apartheid thinking. Maybe the US needs a Truth and Reconciliation Committee to move things along. Maybe those of both races who benefit from racial unrest should be outed. Whether it's some crafty-but- cowardly redneck Klan guy or a pimply skinhead loser or some opportunistic demagogue, these people threaten the progress of this country and should not be appeased or tolerated. What do we have a Justice Department for anyway?

You haven't seen me support Obama's nomination in these blogs, but I'm not afraid of his candidacy nor of his presidency. I am much more afraid of the waste of human capital through the messages we're sending about whose input matters. We're selling ourselves short.

Obama and Jackson may be the same color but thats where their similarities end.

"White supremacists" are nutzoid destroyers and disrupters, and have no problem with taking down a whole country, destroying its entire civilization, and causing massive interracial battles on every front, to prove a point and to gather even more empowerment to themselves. IMHO, they are home-grown terrorists, unconcerned about what they do, what damage they cause, or whom they hurt, as long as people recognize and are drawn to their power.

Interesting statement..also interesting that if you substitute Louis Farragon,Jessie Jackson,or Al Sharpton for white supremacists your statement says the same thing.But then again many people find it convenient to believe that only only whites can be racists.

Cobraguy, it's not only about dwelling on the negatives of the past, although owning up to them is certainly part of what I think is needed. It's also about acknowledging the contributions yesterday and today of all Americans. It's about finding good and making it work. It's about taking a broader view of history and current events so that we don't so often have five white guys sitting around a table talking about an election that includes another race and another gender.

For every black or female "analyst" there are probably a half dozen white males, some of whom go on and on in the same old way, fighting the same old battles, with the same uninteresting, irrelevant analyses. A lot of these people are serving only their own interests as they rake in big bucks by telling people what they want to hear. It doesn't matter if what they say is factual or logical. People believe their garbage because it's not challenging to their sensibilities or preconceived notions.

And to answer your question, yes, I do "honestly think that this country doesn't understand the implications of slavery, and that slavery was wrong". I think that because of all the rationalizing about "southern heritage" that ignores slavery and all the excuse-making that blames blacks for what they never controlled. I really believe that most blacks feel that way too. Yes, some are stirred up by the opportunistic demagoguery I mentioned before, but many know deep in their souls that "this country" wants to sweep their families' pain and loss under the rug as though it had never happened.

You're worried about reparations? You're already paying them to the prison system.

You mentioned that southern heritage ignores slavery. For many southerners, slavery wasn't an issue. Each family today has ancestors that fought in the war and have stories or written materials about their experiences. Slavery for many of them was not an issue.

One of the recent books I read and can't think of the title, stated that 25% of the whites in 1860 had slaves. That was the wealthy crowd who could afford slaves. That means that 75% didn't own even one slave. For them, slavery wasn't an issue.

Most of that 75% were small family farms and cotton was a cash crop. Estimates in 1860 showed that approximately 58% of the cotton was grown by plantations with slaves and 42% by small farms. These small farms used large families with a few paid hired hands to grow and harvest the crops.

The tariffs I mentioned in an earlier post affected not only the plantation owners, but those small farmers and many were ready to secede and start the CSA which they hoped would restore the southern economy.

So, southern heritage is from the descendants of that 75% of small farmers. To them, slavery was not an issue. Of course history books written and published in the north never, ever mention that the majority of people living in the south never had slaves.

heron: I went on a tour in Savannah once and the guide said the same thing. He also said that the south was gearing towards ending slavery before the war ever started. -Not sure about that one, though.

PB, I'm not "worried" about reparations (and I understand what you mean about already paying them). I just don't believe a "payout" of any kind would solve the issue. -People would still complain. And once that money was gone, they would expect to get more.
Plus, if you really want to start another race war, let congress bring "reparations" up for a vote. Put it on a ballot and allow the American people to vote for it, and see what would happen.
American's today should not have to pay for something that happened over 200 years ago. -And it's not like America was the only country with slaves at that time. No matter how some people would like to portray this country, we are NOT the Great Satan.

Would this country like to "sweep this under the rug"? -Probably so. -But don't you think we would be better off if it were put behind us?
"Pretend it didn't happen"? -I don't think we can (nor should we). But if the actions that we've taken already (as a nation) aren't enough, in your eyes, than what would you suggest we do next?
Nothing wrong with understanding our countries history, as long as you also recognize that it was a different time and place then, (same as OTHER countries). We've acknowledged that it was wrong (many countries have yet to do that) and would like to move on. But there are many (of BOTH races) that would rather we dwell on the past, and keep race as a negative issue that splits our nation.
-For them, it's more profitable that way.

I read where the price of cotton was dropping anyway and when Britain started their sea island cotton in India, it would have dropped even more. The drop in cotton prices would have made it impossible for those large plantations to remain profitable enough to maintain slaves. The lack of insecticide controls on the boll weevil finally closed cotton out by 1900 in many areas of the south including here. The rice production, which was the second large user of slaves, was also becoming unprofitable. The markets would have ended slavery by the end of the 19th century.

My grandfather was a farmer and moved to Beaufort in 1910 to oversee cotton growing on St Helena for the McDonald Wilkins Cotton Gin. Of course, paid employees were used on the large farm. The only insecticide they had for the boll weevil was a nicotine based product that was only minimally effective. McDonald Wilkins finally declared bankruptcy in 1915. My grandad bought the farm and started planting vegetables which were very profitable then and up until the 1960s. Nearly all large farms went out of businesses in Beaufort and Charleston Counties because of the 20% interest rates on operating loans.

Well, heron, I wish you could provide the title of that book because actually there are many books, one by Charles Adams comes to mind, which contain facts and interpretations that are widely disputed by more objective historians. I will agree, and have said, that history is often written by those who have or had an agenda.

One review (by Charles Oliver* --see postscript below--, Reason magazine, August 2001) of Adams' When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, says

"Openly partisan to the South, Adams believes that the Civil War truly was one of Northern aggression. He believes that the Southern states had the right to secede and he believes that the war's true legacy is the centralization of power in Washington and the deification of the "tyrant" Abraham Lincoln. To this end, he collects all the damaging evidence he can find against Lincoln and the North. And he omits things that might tarnish his image of the South as a small-government wonderland.

Thus, we hear of Lincoln's use of federal troops to make sure that Maryland didn't secede. We don't learn that Confederate troops occupied eastern Tennessee to keep it from splitting from the rest of the state. Adams tells us of Union Gen. William Sherman's actions against civilians, which he persuasively argues were war crimes. But he doesn't tell us of Confederate troops capturing free blacks in Pennsylvania and sending them south to slavery. Nor does he mention the Confederate policy of killing captured black Union soldiers. He tells us that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; he doesn't mention that the Confederacy did also.
Before and during the war, almost every Southern political leader explicitly said the Southern states seceded to protect slavery. Perhaps the most famous statement came from Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens. In 1861, in Savannah, Georgia, Stephens bluntly declared that slavery was "the immediate cause of the late rupture and the present revolution." He said the United States had been founded on the false belief that all men are created equal. The Confederacy, in contrast, had been "founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural moral condition."

This is the southern heritage that is denied, overlooked, ignored, minimized whatever word you'd like to use, by the proponents of a mostly white vision where honor and justice abounded in the South until the federal government stole it from them. I didn't say that slavery had been ignored BTW. I said that RATIONALIZING ignores it, and I mean that today's rhetoric about white Confederates and their contributions and their rights ignores who was doing the sweat work of building the South. No matter how many small farmers there were, SC didn't become one of the wealthiest colonies of England and later the Union on the basis of small farms. Maybe we just need to agree to disagree about the importance of yesterday's ills to today's.

=============
* post script:"I grew up out in the sticks in the northwest corner of Georgia," recalls Contributing Editor Charles Oliver, who in this issue reviews two very different books about the role of slavery in the South. "I find the attempt to minimize the role of slavery both in antebellum Southern society and as a cause of the Civil War pretty loathsome. I understand why some people might not want to deal with it, but if you don't grapple honestly with the past, you can't deal honestly with the present, either." The 37-year-old Oliver, who majored in political philosophy at the University of Georgia, has a master's degree in economics from Virginia's George Mason University, where he studied under another Southerner, Nobel laureate James Buchanan. In 1988, Oliver moved to Los Angeles to take an assistant editor job with REASON, where he wrote often about civil liberties, environmental matters, and popular culture. In 1993, he joined the staff of Investor's Business Daily, where he reports on economic issues.

No question that the 25% of the population that owned slaves had a vested interest in keeping slavery. My point is that the majority of the population had no interest in keeping slavery or defending it. The history books focus on the plantation owners. They are a more newsworthy and romantic folk to be that wealthy and have their luxurious lifestyle. Who wants the opinions of simple dirt farmers, even though they were the majority. How many books or movies were made about them? I hope future history writers will not think that our society today is made up of just movie and rock stars or famous athletes.

No doubt there will be different versions of history about that era for awhile. The southern researchers are publishing information never seen before. Granted that some will be biased as is some of those that have been in print.

At least there are more versions now instead of just one. Hopefully over time,a more truthful consensus will occur than we have had by consolidating all of the data, not just a selected and one sided versions.

For those of us that have an interest, reading all versions and filtering out bias is the best way to learn the truth. I hope these researchers will continue to find new information.

Although I can't quite follow where this debate about slavery under a heading of Obama's visit to Beaufort comes from, no context can be had on slavery just prior to the Civil War without studying the words of the "great emanicipator" himself.

Read this. Note that it's from the National Park Service. Note also that these are Lincoln's own words.

OG, for me the slavery part is left over from another blog about "southern heritage" and "the flag" and was revived by the comment that the U.S. might not be ready for Obama. I don't have time to discuss Lincoln, but thanks anyway for the link. :>)

What Heron? Are you implying that if you didn't own slaves in the south, you didn't have a vested interest in slavery? Au contraire ... I think it's been well documented how keeping the black man down ... how the subjugation of blacks and the portrayal of the blackman/woman as something less than human, as property to be owned and traded, as worth 3/5ths, etc. etc. benefitted the psyche of white trash, of white non-property owners, etc.

OG, I don't agree that it's necessary to discuss Lincoln in order to talk about the role of slavery in southern culture. We've had at least a half dozen blogs that discuss African Americans in the U.S. and very little has been said about Lincoln. We've had plenty of context, going back to 1787. If you think there's an omission, well then go ahead and discuss. I MAKE time to discuss slavery because I see its vestiges today, every day, and I care about that a whole lot. If Lincoln is still bugging people who love the confederacy, well I DON'T care about that a whole lot.

OTOH, when I hear about Fox News' Bret Baier's ludicrous comparison of Presidents George W Bush and Abraham Lincoln, specifically about how the country felt about Lincoln when he "left office," as though his departure was voluntary, I think maybe we DO need more discussion about Lincoln. I'll make some time around Presidents' Day, which happens to fall in Black History Month anyway. :>)

I am stating, not implying, that most southern whites in that 75% of the southern population did not have a interest in slavery. They were too busy trying to make a living and slavery was an issue for the wealthy. This is confirmed, not only by recent books I have read, but by talking with others of their family histories that confirms my own family stories and diaries. I have already posted that one of my ancestors, a Captain in the CSA, wrote that "slavery is an abomination for a Christian nation." This attitude prevails in other peoples family stories and records.

Of course there are cases of abuse of blacks by arrogant people in the south. Is there any region that is free from this?

There are two web sites, one in New York and one in Boston about the history of slaves in the north. One is:

The New York site is trying to get a truer picture of slavery in the north and stated that the south has been wrongly painted as being the sole area guilty of slavery.

The Boston site stated that a difference in attitudes toward the northern slave was that as person became elderly, they wood kick them out, while in the south, the elderly were cared for in a benevolent manner.

The trend in southern churches before and during the Civil War was to convert many blacks to Christianity. The churches in the south reflect that by having balconies where the slaves and poor whites could sit. The pews on the main floor were named for each family and were "taxed" for having a family pew. Only the wealthy could have a reserved pew. That is the reason many older churches had a door on each pew. It was a assigned pew for that family. Certainly not the view we hold in Christian churches today, but we have evolved some in 150 years.

Plantations built "praise houses" for their slaves to worship and designated areas of land for slaves to be buried with a Christian burial. I have an old slave cemetery on the property I own near my home. I have donated that area to the Beaufort County Land Trust so that it will never be developed.

Despite the controversial statements about the complicated Lincoln, his greatest achievement was to allow southern soldiers to sign a statement of loyalty to the US and send them home. It was a great move to bring this nation together again.